[1] Whether there is a legal interest in seeking revocation of an administrative disposition whose effective period has expired (negative with qualification)

[2] The validity of the stay of execution of administrative disposition

[3] Whether there is a legal interest seeking revocation of a disposition of suspension of business where a person suffers disadvantage from a new delivery reduction point based on the pre-qualification criteria for participation in the public procurement office and detailed criteria for qualification examination for construction of facilities of the public procurement office

[1] Where the effective period of an administrative disposition is fixed, the effect of such administrative disposition is lost due to the lapse of the above period, and there is no legal interest to seek the cancellation of such disposition, unless there are special circumstances to deem that any legal interest is infringed upon due to the remainder of the period.

[2] The suspension of execution as stipulated in Article 23 of the Administrative Litigation Act shall continue to be effective until the date stipulated in the disposition of the decision, and its validity shall naturally cease to exist at the arrival of that time. Thus, in the case where the court declares in the disposition of the suspension of business of the administrative agency which ordered the suspension of business for a certain period the validity of the disposition is suspended until the rendering of a judgment on the merits of the lawsuit pending in the court in question at the disposition of the suspension of execution, the continuation of the suspension of business as stipulated in the disposition shall cease to exist until that time, and at the same time, the suspension period (if the previous suspension of business was already completed at the time of the decision of suspension,

[3] Even if the disposition of business suspension results in disadvantage to the new delivery reduction point for three years based on the pre-qualification criteria for participation in the Public Procurement Service and the detailed criteria for qualification examination for construction of facilities of the Public Procurement Service, such disadvantage is merely an actual and economic disadvantage, and it cannot be deemed that there is a legal interest seeking the revocation thereof.

[1] Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Article 23 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [3] Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act

[1] [3] Supreme Court en banc Decision 94Nu14148 delivered on October 17, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3544), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu7397 delivered on July 11, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2532) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 96Nu14708 delivered on December 20, 1996 (Gong197Sang, 411) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 92Nu18054 delivered on August 24, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 2637), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu6233 delivered on February 14, 197 / [3] Supreme Court Decision 96Nu75989 delivered on July 17, 198 (Gong1997Du305485 delivered on July 14, 1995)

Hyundai Government Co., Ltd. (Attorney Choi Jin-si, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

The Minister of Construction and Transportation

Seoul High Court Decision 96Gu39648 delivered on July 23, 1998

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the lawsuit of this case is dismissed. All costs are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine ex officio.

In a case where the effective period of an administrative disposition is determined, the effect of the administrative disposition becomes null and void due to the lapse of the above period, and there is no legal interest in seeking the cancellation of the disposition, barring any special circumstance to deem that any legal interest has been infringed upon due to the remaining form of the disposition after the lapse of that period (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Nu14148, Oct. 17, 1995). Meanwhile, the effect of a stay of execution under Article 23 of the Administrative Litigation Act continues to exist until the time specified in the disposition, and it naturally becomes null and void upon the arrival of that period. Thus, with regard to the disposition of the administrative agency which ordered the suspension of business for a certain period, where the court rendered a stay of the effect of the disposition until the final judgment of the principal lawsuit in the court is declared to be suspended until the time the disposition is rendered, the period of suspension of business as prescribed in the disposition becomes null and void by the final judgment of the principal lawsuit, and at the same time, the period of suspension (see, e.g., the remaining period).

According to the records, the plaintiff was ordered to suspend the validity of the above disposition from October 30, 1996 to December 7, 196 from November 8, 1996, and filed a lawsuit with the court of original judgment seeking its revocation from the defendant for one month from November 8, 1996 to December 7, 196, and applied for its suspension, and was sentenced by the court of original judgment on November 15, 199 to the ruling of the above case. The plaintiff was sentenced to the judgment against the court of original judgment on July 23, 1998, and no data can be found to prove that the validity of the above disposition was suspended again after the plaintiff appealed. Thus, the decision of suspension of the validity of the above disposition becomes null and void as a matter of course from the time when the validity of the above disposition becomes void, and the disposition becomes null and void as a whole for 23 days after deducting the whole suspension period for 23 days prior to the above suspension period.

Therefore, inasmuch as there are no particular circumstances to deem that the disposition in this case is an infringement of any legal interest of the Plaintiff due to the remaining external form, this case is deemed to have become unlawful as it has no interest in litigation due to the occurrence of a new fact, which is the lapse of the effective period, during the period of the final appeal, and even if the Plaintiff becomes at a disadvantage due to the disposition in the new delivery reduction point for three years based on the criteria for prior examination of participation qualification of the Public Procurement Service and the detailed criteria for examination of qualification for construction of facilities of the Public Procurement Service, such disadvantage is merely an actual and economic disadvantage and cannot be deemed to have a legal interest seeking its revocation (see Supreme Court Decision 95Nu4087, Jul. 14, 1995).

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed because it cannot be maintained at that point of view, and this Court directly decides to dismiss the lawsuit of this case, and the total costs of the lawsuit are to be borne by the plaintiff and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)